But what I have read says that c14 can not be detected aftre 1000 years no matter what it is and no matter how big it is?
BTW thanks everyone for their comments.
UO
uncle_onion
JoinedPosts by uncle_onion
-
3
c14 #2
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history.
a specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14c to measure.. laboratories that measure 14c would like a source of organic material with zero 14c to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14c.
-
-
-
4
C14 #4
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!
) dinosaur bone.
-
-
uncle_onion
go to the page and have a look
-
3
C14 intro
by uncle_onion ini have been doing some research on c14 dating.
i thought the "simplest" way to check it out would be to read a thesis on why it is "wrong" and then research these arguements and see if they are wanting.the thesis is at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html.
i will post the different points and hopefully we can get a few good threads going.. 1. the thesis makes the point that because the flood occured, the carbon in different materials would be as it is now.
-
-
uncle_onion
I agree But I am appoaching this from this angle: i have to prove to myself one way or the other about the validity of C14 dating. Neanderthals existed,we have proof. But the creationalists say that they were a race that were at the tower of Babel and therefore are not the age that C14 says as C14 is unreliable.Now I have to proof to myself that that this is or is not the case. Why? Well I want to believe the Bible as I can not see how evolution could have taken place (although this is a subject that I have noot researched properly yet)But I can not believe the Bible if it contradicts what we have here and now.I am very opened minded and want to see both sides of the story before I make a decision. As I have said before....NO ONE is going to pull the wool over my eyes again!
-
4
C14 #4
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!
) dinosaur bone.
-
-
uncle_onion
Cant stop mate, I need answers!!! :-)
UO
-
3
C14 #6
by uncle_onion in"the moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past.
but even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth.
this gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age.
-
-
uncle_onion
"The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks"
???????????
UO
-
1
C14 #5
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
the earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old.
rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29].
-
-
uncle_onion
The thesis said:
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
-
4
C14 #4
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!
) dinosaur bone.
-
-
uncle_onion
The thesis said:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
??????????
UO
-
1
C14 #3
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
many physical evidences contradict the "billions of years".
of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.
-
-
uncle_onion
The thesis said:
Many Physical Evidences Contradict the "Billions of Years"
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
?????????????
UO
-
3
c14 #2
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history.
a specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14c to measure.. laboratories that measure 14c would like a source of organic material with zero 14c to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14c.
-
-
uncle_onion
The thesis said:
Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.
Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.
??????????
UO
-
1
c14 #1
by uncle_onion inthe thesis said:.
there are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age.
one example is k-ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from mount nguaruhoe in new zealand.
-
-
uncle_onion
The thesis said:
There are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that "excess" argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.[15] This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth's crust. This is consistent with a young world -- the argon has had too little time to escape.[16] If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,[17] make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such "foolproof" techniques can also give "bad" dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr. Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon -- an impossibility.
Different Dating Techniques Should Consistently Agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.[18] Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the "bad" dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don't agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old![19]
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.[20] This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,[21] and ages of 275, 61, 0,0,and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.[22] The "zero" ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
??????????
uo